Davis, Jeffrey wrote: > One of the ideas that came out of last week's conference in Corvallis > was for a code4lib journal. Here's a proposal for what such a journal > might look like; comments, article submissions, and volunteers are all > welcome. I think this is a fine idea. Higher-ups willing (and I think they would be), I can offer it an install of Open Journal Systems for a home, as well as a DSpace installation for a preservation failsafe. > In addition to a number of full-length, in-depth articles on the above > topics, I would also like to see a section of each issue devoted to > shorter, "lightning talk"-style articles directly relevant and useful to > the people actually working with Dspace, MODS, content management > systems, and recalcitrant OPACS. Some possible subjects might be: A "hack of the month" might be a useful ongoing feature. If it proves popular, it could even be subdivided into the "Web hack of the month," "OPAC hack of the month," etc. > WOULD IT BE PEER REVIEWED? > > That's a good question, and I'd like to discuss it. Given the > relatively small size of the field, peer review might not be feasible. Possible to do some of both. Peer-reviewed articles, editor-vetted shorter pieces. > I'm personally interested in the idea of a collaborative review process > -- less traditional peer review, more Slashdot/Digg/Wikipedia -- but > that has its downsides as well. What do people think? If we get something like that working, there'd be a research article in it for somebody. ;) For the less-theoretical pieces, I should think an "I tried this and it worked!" button would be an effective alternative peer-review mechanism. Dorothea